Welt Online published a fascinating and frightening article on the
attitudes of Berlin's youth towards the communist dictatorship that was
East Germany until the fall of the Berlin Wall. Most telling are results of a poll of 15-17 year old students, documented in the article and translated here:

"The DDR (GDR - East Germany) was not a dictatorship - the people just had to conform like anywhere else."
24.6% of all students agreed with this statement, 21.1% in West-Berlin
and 28.1% in East-Berlin. 54.1% of all students rejected the statement,
60.5% from West-Berlin and 48.6% in East-Berlin. The remainder (21.3% total, 18.4% in West-Berlin and 23.2% in East-Berlin) selected "neutral".

"The Stasi (Ministry for State Security of the DDR) was an intelligence agency, just like any other state would have."
31.1% of all students agreed with this statement, 24.4% in West-Berlin
and 38.8% in East-Berlin. 49.6% of all students rejected the statement,
56.2% in West-Berlin and 44.7% in East-Berlin. The remainder (19.3% of
all students, 19.5% in West-Berlin and 16.5% in East-Berlin) selected
"neutral".

"I find it good that in the DDR the state took care of all
citizens, even though, as a result, individual citizens had less
freedom." 26.4% of all students agreed, 17.2% from West-Berlin
and 36.3% from East-Berlin. 44.5% of all students rejected the
statement, 55% from West-Berlin and 32.9% from East-Berlin . The
remainder (29.1% of all students, 27.8% from West-Berlin and 30.8% from
East-Berlin) selected "neutral".

"The command economy in the DDR was not better or worse than the market economy in West Germany, just different."
20.1% of all students agreed with this statement, 13.9% from
West-Berlin and 26.7% from East-Berlin. 43.9% rejected this statement,
51.5% from West-Berlin and 36.3% from East-Berlin. The remainder (36%
of all students, 34.6% in West-Berlin and 37% in East-Berlin) selected
"neutral".

"When was the Berlin Wall built?" 57.6% answered correctly with 1961, 42.4% gave an incorrect answer and named years between 1945 and 1968. There were few East-West differences here.

"The Berlin Wall was built by...?" 13.6% of all Berlin students (12.4% West and 14.3% East) answered that it was the Allies, 1.9% (1.6% West and 2.2% East) said it was the USA, 46% answered the Soviet Union (47.2% West and 44.8% East), 4.5% said it was West Germany (3.9% West and 5.3% East) and only 34.9% answered correctly with the DDR (34.9% West and 33.4% East).

Former Chancellor Helmut Kohl was identified with the DDR by 13.5% of all students (10.1% West and 16.2% East). 81.6% of all students identified him with West Germany (84.9% West and 80.5% East).

DDR Head of State Erich Honecker was identified with West Germany by 8.2% of the students (10.1% West and 6.1% East).

Most unsettling are the positive or neutral responses by a majority of East-Berlin students polled (and sizable minorities of West-Berlin students) to the propositions that the DDR was not a dictatorship and that the Stasi was just an intelligence agency like any other. This represents a dangerous ignorance of one's own national history as well as a frightening willingness to condone or overlook the crimes of the former East German regime.

Unfortunately, this willingness to overlook the misdeeds of dictators is something that I have experienced firsthand with young Germans. When I asked a young woman protesting the Iraq war and chanting anti-American slogans whether the crimes of Saddam Hussein bothered her - she replied: "Saddam Hussein - what has he ever done to anyone?" Needless to say - her attitudes are closely shared by many young Germans with similar political persuasions.

Considering Germany's foreign policy, it is not difficult to conclude that such attitudes - (combined with Germany's reflexive historic pacifism and hyper-sensitivity to casualties) - strongly influence German reactions and responses to the threats posed by present day totalitarians. We have grown accustomed to the common refrain: Downplay the threat posed by the world's most vicious regimes and avoid military engagement at any cost.

Note to readers: Special thanks to Karin Quade for bringing this to our attention. Be sure to check out her blog and posting on this. She currently has an interesting piece on how Gerhard Schroeder continues to serve as an apologist for and appeaser of absolutists - this time in China.

Also, our creative pause is at an end. As I said earlier - "I'll be back" and now I am - refreshed and stronger than ever - with David Harnasch to back me up. Thank you for your patience and welcome back.

"It didn't take long before bloggers began attacking and Matt Drudge's
faithful army of right-wing, Red State readers began spamming our
In-Boxes and conservative political blogs resumed their attacks on the
"European left."

So now anyone who does not agree with SPIEGEL's view of the world is a brainwashed zombie follower of Matt Drudge's "faithful army of right-wing, Red State readers." Let's make one thing very clear: You don't have to be American or conservative or from a red-state to be deeply upset by the callous, politically motivated reaction from European media - particularly left-leaning European media just like SPIEGEL ONLINE. For example, our comments section reflects the vigorous, and, at times heated, debate on gun control. There is, however, no debate as to the shameless and irresponsible nature of media coverage throughout Europe.

The SPIEGEL ONLINE article actually catalogs the most outrageous articles (here is a link to the English version) and offers several letters to the editor from the United States. Will Europeans finally start to understand that their media has done enormous damage to transatlantic relations - in this case and for years on end? With people like Uwe Schmitt out there, however, we still have a long way to go - but one can always hope...

UPDATE: "Journalist" Uwe Schmitt, correspondent for Die Welt - concludes an article on the killings with the line: "America is reaping what it sows." Can't he even wait until the dead are buried? Guess he is too busy trying to prove that American leaders are liars to the brain-dead Hate America audience to care.

NOTE: Uwe Schmitt has "adjusted" his article and taken out the hateful last lines after massive complaint.

"Amok in America: Bush Brings No Happiness: Sadness and compassion once again overshadowed by the behavior of the US President, who reflexively expressed that everyone must continue to have the right to own a weapon. That's called loyalty to your principles in Texas." Commentary by Peter Becker (On top of the Tagesspiegel homepage)

Once again Tagesspiegel and other German media are reflexively exploiting a tragedy in America to peddle their pet issues like gun-control and Bush-bashing to a willing audience eager to degrade the United States at all costs. President Bush never said that everyone had the right to own a weapon - he simply defended his stance on gun control - but actually explaining the debate and Bush's actual stance on gun control is a little too nuanced for Germany's propaganda central.

As expected, before the victims are even buried, SPIEGEL ONLINE is already exploiting the Virginia Tech tragedy to attack President Bush and politicize the gun control issue in one of their online forums. They could care less about the American friends who just got blown away. This is all about their agenda and selling more copy. Don't be surprised if much of the German media follows suit. Sick but true...

The forum question asks if Bush is right to defend the American right to bear arms. One SPIEGEL commenter left this entry: "Why sharpen (the gun laws)? You can't take away the Normal American's favorite toys as long as the Big American struts around with atomic bombs and aircraft carriers."

Actually - the killer was South Korean. But hey, what difference do the facts make...

Not much sympathy there for the American friends and the parents of the deceased. Comments like this are quite common on SPIEGEL forums - humanity goes right out the window.

Wow. You compliment Die Welt for being a relatively balanced paper that avoids anti-Americanism one day and the same day they publish an absolutely freaky article on trigger-happy-American-special-forces-soldiers-convinced-by-Jesus-to-go-to-Iraq. No stereotypes there - right?

(...) Lovie Smith became the first black head coach to make it all the way to the NFL’s marquee game yesterday when his Chicago Bears won the NFC championship. About four hours later, his pal and mentor, Tony Dungy, joined him there when his Indianapolis Colts took the AFC title. For the first time in the big game’s 41-year history, not one, but two black head coaches will be on the sidelines. “It means a lot,” Dungy said after a 38-34 victory over the New England Patriots. “I’m very proud to represent African-American coaches.”

Headline and photo of the story refer to a confession of the Hungarian President to have lied to the Hungarian public. The confession was unintentionally recorded during a secret session of his party. The unintentional recording was not mentioned in the summary shown above, though.

The second but last sentence of the WELT article reads:

> Head of government declares: "We have always lied in the last years."

Last sentence:

> George W. Bush, King of microphone glitches.

The WELT online presentation connects optically the confession of numerous lies by a head of governement to George W. Bush's mic glitches.

Daniel Hannan - member of the European Parliament (MEP) for South East England (Conservative) - has written a magnificient piece in Germany's daily WELT on migration movements within the European Union that border on the absurd. Daniel was kind enough to grant permission to present the original English version of his article in Davids Medienkritik.

Please note the part on the German MEP's innovative income policies...

Strange EU Migrations

The European Parliament, it seems, has been swindled. We MEPs – or, rather, you taxpayers – have been paying €1 million a year over the odds to the city of Strasbourg.

It is, of course, quite normal to over-invoice when dealing with the EU. Contractors know that Eurocrats are not spending their own money. They are like builders asking “Insurance job, this, is it?” – only on a far, far grander scale.

What distinguishes this little scam, though, is that it reignites the argument about the location of the European Parliament. MEPs generally meet in Brussels; but, once a month, we travel Strasbourg. (We also maintain a permanent seat in Luxembourg, for reasons which are too complicated to go into now.) The expense of migrating between these places is awesome. Even when we factor out the cost of interpretation and translation, each MEP costs the taxpayer nearly €2.5 million a year. It’s not just the 732 MEPs who make the monthly peregrination, you see: it’s the chauffeurs, the committee clerks, the man who advises your secretary about her pension rights – oh, and some twelve tons of papers, shuttling back and forth in a dedicated train.

The question of whether we should continue to meet in the chief town of Alsace tends to divide MEPs on grounds of nationality rather than political leaning. The British are sick of the place, largely because they hate having to put themselves into the inept hands of Air France every month. German MEPs, on the other hand, love it – apparently because they can travel for free within Germany, which allows them to take the train to Offenburg, be picked up there by a parliamentary chauffeur, and then claim a full fare for the journey.

The trouble is that there is no mechanism for ending the Strasbourg sessions. At the beginning of the 1990s, sneaky French negotiators managed to insert a

As we all know from the German media and from German politicians, the German Social Model with its many collectivist features is infinitely superior to the American capitalist system, which is based on profit orientation, selfishness, exploitation of the poor, etc., etc., etc.... Also frequently mentioned by representatives of Germany Inc. is the sad fate of American minorities, such as immigrants and "Neger", who suffer from century old racial prejudices of the ruling white Anglo-Saxon class. (No such thing happening in Germany, of course....)

Hmm... lately, there have been a few exception to the law of German superiority, such as sky-rocketing unemployment, lackluster economic growth, an ailing health system, a pay-as-you-go pension system that seems to be degenerating into oblivion faster than you can say "declining birth rates in Germany".

And then there is the immigration issue. The last ten years have seen an almost enthusiastic approval for increased immigration to Germany by the Left and the Liberal FDP "because we need immigration". The basic idea behind the "immigration now" approach (my expression) is the desire to have young immigrants pay for the pensions and health costs of Germany's increasingly aging population.

But there is unwelcome news from the Muslim front...

Letter from the teachers at the Ruetli Elementary School in Berlin to their state regulators:

...The composition of our student body has changed in recent years such that the highest proportion of students is now those with Arabic migrant backgrounds. It currently runs 34.9%, followed by 26.1% for those with Turkish migrant backgrounds. The overall portion of young people of non-German heritage amounts to 83.2%. The statistic shows that the proportion of pupils in our schools with Arabic migrant backgrounds has continually increased in recent years. (...)

We must say that the mood in some classes is currently characterized by aggressiveness, disrespect, and ignorance with regard to us adults. Necessary instructional material is brought to school by only a few pupils. The willingness to vandalize property is growing: doors are kicked in, waste paper baskets are abused as footballs, firecrackers are set off and picture frames are ripped from the hallway walls. (...)

In many classes the attitude during instruction is marked by a total rejection of the subject matter and by degrading demeanor. The teaching staff are totally unprotected; objects are thrown directly at them from the class, instructions are ignored. (...)

So far we haven’t gotten any support from the parents in our efforts to enforce norms and rules. Meeting dates are not kept, phone calls fail because of inadequate language comprehension. We’re at wit’s end, (...)

In most families, our pupils are the only ones who get up in the morning. How are we supposed to explain to them that it’s nevertheless important to be in school and to strive for graduation? (emphasis added)(Translation by Richard Bartholomew)

The failure to integrate Muslim minorities in Europe constitutes a security risk for the US, the US state department’s undersecretary for European affairs Daniel Fried told a US senate committee.

Mr Fried said unemployment, discrimination and lack of integration among Europe’s Muslim communities had created an "audience" open to extremist messages, according to Reuters. (emphasis added)

Germany's cherished Social Model indeed has not achieved much in terms of integration of Muslim minorities (or other foreign minorities). Germany's top politician's names are as German as Sauerkraut and Knackwurst: Merkel, Platzeck, Westerwelle, Roth, Stoiber, Schmidt, Schäuble, Jung, Steinmeier, Seehofer, Beck, Rüttgers, Koch, Gerhardt, etc., etc. Business careers for immigrants are still the exception. University enrollment for students "with immigration background" runs way behind the immigrant's share for the "under 30" segment of the population.

For immigrants in all of Europe, there is no equivalent to the "American dream". As Leon de Winter in February 2006 wrote in WELT: "People who decide to go to the U.S. have chosen their dream - they want to become Americans. (...) In Europe, personal incentives for immigrants are vague and abstract" (our translation).

The issue of immigration - especially of people with a Muslim background - will turn into a nightmare for Europe.

Welt am Sonntag, the Sunday edition of the conservative German daily Welt, published in its January 23, 2006, edition this excellent piece ("Dad, you burgeois, can I have the keys to the BMW?") by Marcia Pally. Her article addresses the hypocrisy in Germany with regard to the U.S. led war against terrorism. I obtained the original English version through Stefan Herre, who's blog "Politically Incorrect" I very much recommend to our German speaking readers.

“Every nation has the government it deserves.” Joseph de Maistre, 1811.

What did the Schroeder government know, and when did they know it? Since the disclosure of Bundesnachrichtendienstes (BND) activities in Iraq, these questions have percolated throughout Germany, along with a third: how much did they lie to us? These are important questions about government. But I am concerned with “us.” The responsibility for what the country does is not the state’s but ultimately ours. If we abdicate scrutiny of government, then we will get the Fuehrer we deserve.

It is very dangerous for Germany, as for any democracy, to have one set of beliefs about what it is and does, and yet for the government to do something else--while the nation buries its head in its benign self-image. The German people were overwhelmingly against the Iraq war. The nation cheered when the Court affirmed the young soldier who would not fulfill a post which freed US soldiers for Iraq operations. This, said the public, is the principled people we are. Yet not only did BND operatives work on the ground in Iraq but Germany cooperated with the US in intelligence and logistics, offering Ramstein and other facilities.

Indeed, German intelligence has been a key ally to the US in the “war on terror” in spite of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and US use of the death penalty. The government knew of CIA flights to East European interrogation sites, and if it receives intelligence from governments that use torture, it uses the information and passes it on to the US. Elite German units are catching Taliban and

A Jaundiced Look at a Sympathetic FigureSuicide bombers are really good people: Alan Posener: The disappointing film "Paradise Now"

Said is a suicide bomber in Nablus. Long trained for this job, he and his friend Khaled don't hesitate a moment when their organization's leader announces they've drawn the winning straw and will be allowed to stage a double mass murder the next day in Tel Aviv. (...)

The next day the friends start out and although Khled gets cold feet at the last moment, Said goes through with it and blows himself up with a bus load of jews. Mission accomplished.

So much for the plot of the German-Dutch-French co-produciton "Paradise Now". (...)

Hany Abu-Assads film is the first fruit of the "World Cinema Fund", the mutual film sponsorship of the Berlinale and Federal Cultural Foundation. The evangelical film jury names "Paradise Now" as the film of the month because it invites the viewer to "think about the assasin's motives". Amnesty International distinguishes it with its peace prize because it's neither "lecturing nor moralizing". That's true: Noone in the film says that it might morally wrong (and not just politically conterproductive as Suha claims), to mass murder the innocent.

Most German critics praise the "sophisticated" presentation. Well "Paradise Now" is certainly "sophisticated" compared to the hate soaked anti-semitic propaganda films that play every evening on TVs in every arabic country. Sure it's "sophisticated" compared to the videos that Hamas, Hisbollah and Co. produce. (...)

As Said begs his commander for a second chance, he finds the words that Europeans miss so painfully in the communiques of the terrorists. Words that speak to the heart - just like Saids' gesture speaks to the heart not to board a bus carrying a sweet israeli child. That's how they are, these murderers: actually good people.

But the film doesn't show Saids'deed: Women without abdomens, men without heads, children without arms and legs, blood and guts in seats, burned pieces of flesh all over the place. Nothing about that: After panning past Saids' eyes the screen becomes bright and white and pure.

At the 55th international film festival in Berlin 2005 "Paradise Now" won the Publikumspreis ("audience award") and the Blue Angle for the best European film.

Here is another gem from Berlin Aspen Institute's Jeffrey Gedmin...the original English version of the article that was published in Tuesday's "Welt" in German. I had planned to publish the piece earlier, but then had to delay it because of Katrina. Katrina is still at the forefront of our thinking, but I think Jeffrey Gedmin's voice needs to be heard under any circumstances.

Journalists: Useful Idiots for Terrorists?

By Jeffrey Gedmin

I think media coverage of Iraq generally stinks. Televison is the absolute worst. I have a simple theory. Lots of people at CNN, BBC and in German media--in the last case it would be hard to find exceptions--were against the war. Passionately against. I believe that today these same folks allow their passions and prejudice to get in the way of fair and objective reporting. I wonder what it would take to initiate an honest and open debate about the subject in Germany? Or any debate at all for that matter.

By now, of course, the media has succeeded in reducing Iraq to a single issue story: suicide bombings. Terrorist violence is an enormous

In an article entitled, America’s Friends and the Internet, author Hannes Stein of Die Welt, a major German daily newspaper, finally does what many in the German media have long refused to do: He delves into the world of German bloggers fed up with the "majority opinion" in Germany. And to his credit, he does so without attempting to smear, dismiss or belittle his subject as others have done in the past.

This is how the article begins:

“Stars and Stripes: In the electronic underground rumbles a parallel universe that has departed from the German majority opinion

Hard to believe, but people still live in Germany who have neither red nor green stars dancing in front of their eyes. And to begin with the relatively harmless: These people think that capitalism is in fact a good thing. They believe that democracy and market economies belong together like Yin and Yang.”

That is a nice enough introduction. Clearly, the author also possesses a keen sense of sarcastic humor: After all, how many people in Germany still have "red or green stars" dancing in front of their eyes? The current red-green government of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has been one of the most unpopular post-war governments in German history for years now.

If the article has one major flaw though, it is that it oversimplifies a number of issues. For one, it leaves readers with the false impression that blogs like ours are unconditionally uncritical of the United States and George W. Bush.

Just to be clear:The unconditional, uncritical support of the United States, George W. Bush or neo-conservatism has never been what we at Davids Medienkritik are about and never will be what we are about. We believe that the United States, like any other nation, needs to be frequently criticized and challenged on the issues. We believe that American conservatives, including members of the Bush administration, must be regularly confronted with opposing ideas and called-on to defend their own, just as members of the German mainstream media must be regularly confronted with opposing ideas and forced to defend their own. We believe that rigorous, critical, constructive debate is an absolute necessity in any democracy. We believe that the media plays an important role in the furtherance of such debate.

What we at Davids Medienkritik object to is the simplistic, propaganda-like demonization of the United States, George W. Bush and conservatives in German media and society. We object to the fact that American conservatives are repeatedly smeared and dismissed in Germany without the slightest examination or consideration of their arguments. We object to the fact that conservatives are rarely given a chance to express their views in a fair, constructive and open forum and rarely listened to or engaged in a substantive dialogue. We object to sweeping portrayals of Americans as Fascists, militarists, idiots, torturers or blood-sucking capitalist insects. We object when the German government begins to compare human beings to parasites in an attempt to get elected. We object to the obsessive cataloging of alleged American war crimes and capitalist transgressions by the very same people who condone -and do business with- the world's most brutal dictatorships. We object when the German media refuse to listen to conservative ideas, yet interview one left-wing "Amerika Experte" after the other, after the other. We object to the German "majority opinion", fostered by the German media and some members of the German government, that America is to blame for many of the world's problems and that George W. Bush is a stupid, militaristic semi-reincarnation of Hitler who dominates American society and media.

That is why, despite its flaws, Mr. Stein's article should be highly applauded. It is a rare attempt to understand and explain what bloggers are actually about and what drives us. It is a real attempt to begin a much needed dialogue. Here is another excerpt:

“Even crazier: These outsiders openly express their like for America. For them, George W. Bush is not seen as a cross between a chimpanzee and Adolf Hitler. They were for the war against Saddam Hussein; but it hardly interested them whether there were really weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It was about the elimination of a revolting dictator in the hope that the gates to the democratization of the entire Middle East would be thrown open.”

The above quote is a microcosm of the entire article. It begins by pointing out something useful: Many Germans, who pride themselves on nuanced thinking and the keen ability to sense all shades of gray, have fallen victim to a cheap and overly-simplistic view of George W. Bush as a stupid, war-mongering cowboy.

But if the first few sentences represent a ray of light, what follows is a shuddering blast of darkness: From nowhere, the author makes the intellectually-lazy assumption that “pro-American” bloggers don’t really care whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and that it was all about removing a revolting dictator. Many German readers, upon reading this sentence, are sure to nod knowingly to themselves and think… “Ah yes, for all their high talk of democracy these pro-American bloggers really are hypocrites…what about all of the other dictators in the world…We don’t want a unilateralist America as our world police…”

To set the record straight: This blogger has always cared about the issue of weapons of mass destruction and, in relation to that, Saddam Hussein’s refusal to comply with over a dozen United Nations Security Council resolutions calling for his disarmament over the course of a decade. Many bloggers - like many governments, including those of France and Germany - believed that Saddam Hussein possessed, or at least sought to possess, weapons of mass destruction right up to the commencement of military action against him in 2003. Saddam's stubborn refusal to fully cooperate with the United Nations inspectors in accordance with international law seemed only to confirm those fears. Like me, many bloggers were deeply concerned about the prospect of a Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction in a post September 11 world. Put another way: Mr. Stein's assertion that we collectively did not care about weapons of mass destruction is simply incorrect and inaccurate.

And again, Mr. Stein's article is a giant step in the right direction in that he has actually made an attempt to explain and understand blogs likeours and the people and ideas behind them. He correctly indicates that what we bloggers really want is not consensus, but a discussion as to whether the "majority opinion" in Germany is right and fair. Ultimately, what most bloggers want is a dialogue in Germany and across the Atlantic without the blinding lights and the blaring horns of an ideological media shutting down the conversation.

Matthias Doepfner, Chief Executive of German publisher Axel Springer AG, is one of the most vocal critics of the new political agenda that is so widely shared in German politics, the media and the public: tolerance for anti-Semitism, sympathy for anti-Americanism, skepticism towards capitalism. Our translation of his brilliant piece "Europe - Thy Name is Cowardice" was one of the all-time favorites for this blog's visitors (more than 20.000 on a single day!).

In his commentary in the Sunday paper "Welt am Sonntag" on May 8, 2005, Doepfner wonders whether Germans are truly liberated:

The sum total of what we learned from World War II is, “War? Never again!” More important lessons would have been, “Fanaticism? Never again!” and “Racism? Never again!” and “Dictatorship? Never again!” In light of this historical background, German tolerance for aggressive anti-Semitism in the parts of the Middle East is astonishing, since supporting Israel and the security of its citizens should be a given. German sympathy for anti-Americanism before and since the war in Iraq is remarkable, since friendship towards the Americans, to whom we owe Germany’s reconstruction and independence after 1945 as well as the 1990 reunification should be a tenet of common decency. But Germans’ deep-seated skepticism towards the free market, towards capitalism, is most irritating.

The docudrama “Speer and Him” has a scene, set in the basement of a brewpub, in which Hitler enthuses his unemployed and despairing listeners with one main thesis: “Materialism must naturally be overcome by idealism.” This fine-sounding promise started it all – and its power to fascinate lives to this day. Groups at the political periphery take advantage of its power. Pride in one’s nationality slips over the edge into nationalism when patriotism turns into xenophobia and social responsibility turns into socialism when seeking justice turns into mad demands for total equality. The issue of whether National Socialism is rightist or leftist is only superficial – a matter of painting it’s façade black or red.

The 8th of May was the day of Germany’s defeat, a defeat that many considered a liberation by the Allies. However, it wasn’t a real liberation. We must liberate ourselves. Only the future will tell if we’ve truly accomplished that self-liberation.

In an interview with Germany's conservative daily "Welt", Henry Kissinger made some insightful remarks on the state of American-European relations:

(Translation by Laín Coubert)

DIE WELT: When George W. Bush visited Europe a few weeks ago, he spoke of a new era of transatlantic relations. Many Europeans were skeptical, suspecting more style than substance. Is this mistrust justified?

Kissinger: Anyone familiar with President Bush knows that he means what he says. This differentiation between style and substance is out of place. Bush made an honest attempt to improve transatlantic relations. Now the ball is in the court of the Europeans. A true partnership can only develop if both sides are willing to scrutinize their own positions and make concessions. But many Europeans in fact continue to insist that the US president demonstrate his good will every day - without themselves saying what they are willing to do in exchange.

DIE WELT: Why do Europeans dislike Bush?

Kissinger: The political and intellectual center of gravity in the US has shifted somewhat away from the

What a great idea: Warning labels for biased articles! Jeffrey Gedmin of the Aspen Institute in Berlin made this hilarious suggestion in an article published in Germany's daily WELT. (The cartoon on the left added by us.)

(I should mention that we now can offer the original English version of Jeff Gedmin's WELT article that was sent to us by the Aspen Institute Berlin. Many thanks to them and to Hartmut Lau who provided the English translation of the first version we presented).

This is Gedmin's article:

I hate over-regulation, but I wonder whether journalism needs what the food industry has. I like being able to read the label to know the ingredients in my juice or tomato sauce. Why shouldn't I know more about the news I am consuming?

I think about this when I consider much of the one-sided reporting on Iraq. The United States is no exception. I came across an interview recently with Rod Nordland, the Baghdad bureau chief of Newsweek magazine. Asked why we should be optimistic about democracy in the Middle East, Nordland says, "Who's optimistic?" Asked why Bush cares about the people of Iraq, Nordland says, "Who says he cares?" Nordland has strong opinions. Me too. But Nordland is in the news business, so why not disclose in his by-line, "Mr. Nordland opposed the Iraq war, thinks Arab democracy is an illusion, and believes George W. Bush is heartless and cynical." At least there would be no pretending about neutrality and objectivity.

I think about this when I consider the one-sided reporting in Germany about the United States. Take the Berliner Tagesspiegel. The paper's correspondent writes for the news section and publishes columns on the opinion page. I often find it hard to tell the difference between the two. Sometimes the news stories are so opinionated I yearn for a label, like "Malte Lehming thinks that the president of the United States is a war-mongering ayatollah whose conservative-religious revolution is destroying American democracy."

Columns and documentary films should be no exception. Why not have a box score, like in American baseball? "Jeffrey Gedmin was batting 300 in 2004"-that's being right one out of three times. Maybe a second line could attest to the accuracy of the facts that underline our arguments.This should apply to political documentaries, too. The most notorious in this business is America's Michael Moore. He preferred Saddam Hussein in power. Last year he was cheering the Iraqi insurgents to kill as many Americans as they could. That's free speech, however repugnant. But then there are those things we call facts. In Fahrenheit 9/11 Moore asserted that the White House approved special charter flights for bin Laden family members to leave the US, without being interviewed by the FBI and while US airspace was still closed. But none of this turned out to be true. Moore also asserted that the Carlyle Group, a business with ties to the Bush family, profited from September 11th because it owns United Defense, a military contractor. But United Defense's jewel project of the time, an $11 billion artillery rocket system, was cancelled by the Bush administration. Maybe a label should warn, "this product could be dangerous to your mental health."

Maybe journalism should have something akin to a driver's license. Break enough rules, endanger public safety, you get your privileges revoked. Ok, free press is a right. I oppose all forms of censorship. You're safe, Michael. You can run those red lights and still drive on the side walks.

In truth, though, the rest os us could police ourselves a bit more. I recall a journalist from a top daily once telling me he was struggling with a story about Jürgen Möllemann, because he found it so hard to keep his own views out of the story. For news, that's surely a model. Until then, why not stick a label on the by-line of that next Iran story, "John Doe thinks American foreign policy is neo-imperialist and personally does not understand why the Mullahs should not have nuclear weapons."___________________________

Jeffrey Gedmin, director of the Aspen Institute Berlin, gets not a dime from the U.S. government, but wishes someone in Washington would reconsider.

...you need to have a deeply ingrained anti-American sentiment to become Washington correspondent of a German media outlet. Credentials as a journalist? Well, let's not be too demanding... Malte Lehming is definitely superbly qualified for the job.

Update: When searching for a warning label image at Google I found this beautiful cartoon. I thought you'd like it too: